So the New York Times received two separate open letters from hundreds of people and organizations, including a huge amount of its own contributors, readers and subscribers, trying to hold the "paper of record" accountable for its anti-trans bias that has had real world consequences. Both directly highlighted observable issues with pinpoint precision and one even offered action items to the paper to improve its coverage. How did the NYT respond? With denial and defensiveness, within a fraction of the time it took to draft the letters.

But this doesn't look "deep and empathetic" to me.

An Open Letter to New York Times Subscribers

Hello,

I am writing to encourage you to cancel your subscription to the New York Times, in light of their consistently aggressively biased, irresponsible, and shoddy reporting on trans issues and stacking of their op-ed section with transphobic voices.

This is not a new problem, but it's one that the NYT has compounded and doubled down on over the last few years. The open letter published yesterday is a remarkably civil overview of the issues with their reporting and the material harm that reporting has done; it doesn't even touch on the op-ed stuff, which is absolutely vile. The NYT's official response was to dismiss the signatories--including hundreds of NYT contributors and thousands of readers and other media professionals (including me)--as "activists" working at odds with the NYT's nominal goal of journalistic integrity. The next day--today--they headlined their op-ed section with a defense of J.K. Rowling, who has done more to misinform and stoke the fires of transphobia--in both practice and official policy--than any other public figure, comparing her "persecution"--being correctly identified as transphobic--to that experienced by Salman Rushdie, and repeatedly misgendering trans men as women.

As a former journalist, I consider the NYT's reporting on trans issues unconscionable; as a trans person, I find it incredibly scary. NYT articles--ones misreported to an extent that has triggered open criticism from major medical organizations--have been used to justify some of the most aggressive anti-trans legislation this and last season. That the "paper of record" has decided to advocate for our dehumanization puts the dignity and lives of people like me in active jeopardy, and regardless the quality of their other work, I don't think there's a conscionable way to continue to support them. Yours, Jay Edidin

Banner Announces 10K New Signers to Critique of N.Y. Times' Trans Coverage

“More than 10,000 New York Times readers have signed on to the GLAAD-led letter calling for the paper to improve its coverage of transgender issues.

The same day the coalition letter was delivered, another one, signed by more than 180 Times contributors, was brought to the paper. The signatories to that letter now exceed 1,000.”

(read more)

The NYT defending JK Rowling in the year of our lord 2023… as if we needed more proof that they are wildly out of touch. Especially after their contributors just (!) sent a very reasonable and respectful request for them to actually adhere to their own journalistic standards when discussing transgender and non-binary people. It’s heartening to see people speaking up on behalf of the trans community, but at the same time upsetting to see some other NYT contributors and defenders scoff at these accusations, not caring about the very real impact on vulnerable trans and non-binary folks. These articles have literally been used in legal arguments to support banning gender-affirming healthcare. And they don’t even stand up to basic journalistic standards! Any reader should be outraged, and the doubling down just proves the point even more: The NYT has repeatedly failed to report responsibly on this topic.

More and more the NYT is showing how ugly it is

NYT and Pamela Paul are at it again!

Since when are they afraid to speak out?

Yeah mom, how on earth could treating your kids dysphoria help with their depression?

All the ND kids and their genders, amirite?

Once again, they try to act like they're just telling both sides because they mention how they don't like trump, but then will ask "how do we know the kid isn't just gay?" several times.

Bad article NYT, bad bad shitty transphobic writer.

Mainstream audiences seem drawn to a very atypical type of detransition story (the right-wing media seems to find a new one about every six months, while the mainstream rediscovers detransition every couple of years), one where a cisgender person falsely believes themselves to be trans, takes steps that permanently alters their appearance, then finds they’re unhappy living as another sex, feeling intense regret that they’ve made a “terrible mistake.”

The thing is, in my years of work covering trans issues, I have never come across a story that continued to fit the pattern of a cis person who made a mistake after I’ve read all the smaller, less viral interviews the detransitioned person ever gave. There are detransitioned people whose stories have been presented that way by reporters, but the stories that go viral turn out to have cleaned up the untidy bits, where the detransitioned person explains they believe they experienced gender dysphoria the same way other trans people do, and decided to detransition due to their newfound moral or ideological beliefs. This group includes Chris Beck, Chloe Cole, and all or almost all the detransitioned people whose stories have become popular in the mainstream. ...

... the mainstream understanding of detransition needs to evolve from simple parables about the dangers of transness as a social contagion to more acceptance of nonbinary identities and more awareness of the multitude of paths through gender an individual life can take

NYT writers and editors pen open letter condemning The New York Times for contributing to the climate of transphobia with their irresponsible reporting on trans issues.

It’s about god damn time NYT was held to account.

If you want to defend liberal capitalism with "But the NYT said-" or "But TYT said-" consider the following:

Coalition building on the grounds of ignoring people is a bad way to build a coalition, and pandering towards people who hate you is stupid. We all get this, but the people at these liberal news organizations do not, so consider the fact that they may not be as knowledgeable as you would like to be a given and find better news.

And to lefties, maybe don't call Ana Kasparian a bitch even if you really want to. It will be the only thing she hears because, like most liberal journalists, she hears only what she wants to. Otherwise she wouldn't be calling Ben Shapiro respectful.

(the NJB situation still has me a bit annoyed, but I feel like this fight is more productive than complaining about one Canadian with bad takes)

Anyway,

We apologize for the inconvenience.

i've been avoiding the NYT but i went and looked and it really is just like. in a thoroughly predictable turn of events the kristof column from the beginning of this month abt how trans-inclusive language is too complicated for ppl who haven't gone to college (🙄) has now given rise to letters to the editor abt 'the disaffecting nature of language manipulation by white liberal elitists, who appear more engaged in performance art driven by a power lust than a desire to make our discourse more meaningful.' flames on the side of my face.

It Is Journalism’s Sacred Duty To Endanger The Lives Of As Many Trans People As Possible

(The Onion’s reaction to NYT transphobic shit weasel propaganda) 

fuck the new york times. 

Writers at the New York Times are pushing back on their recent abysmal coverage of transgender issues.

Like with many other topics in the past few years, NYT has tried to frame this as a “both sides” issue rather than an open threat to the existence of a small portion of the population, specifically children, who are being scapegoated. Glad these contributors spoke up because the articles they reference lack even basic journalistic integrity, like failing to mention that a person they quoted who had “detransitioned” also happens to be the president of an anti-trans hate group. It’s lazy writing that only amplifies threat to trans people, rather than stating facts that might - God forbid - make transphobes uncomfortable.

“What if you were writing a profile on someone named Janet and I was your editor, and I was like, ‘I’m sorry, for balance, find someone who wants to kill Janet’?” This week, Tuck Woodstock, host of Gender Reveal, takes us on a journey through the New York Times’ coverage of trans issues—and in the end, he points the way to a better future.

A great episode talking about how journalistic objectivity has come to mean “doesn’t have any empathy for or connection to the people they’re talking about” and journalistic balance has come to mean “treating non-authoritative sources as equal to authoritative sources” particularly when it comes to the NYT’s coverage of trans topics.

The Onion gets it